filings.toolsItem 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
93K characters. Original on sec.gov · Markdown
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
| --- | --- |
| (dollars in thousands, except per share data) |
|---|
Results of Operations for the Years Ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009
Overview
Business
Our primary business is the construction and sale of single-family detached homes, townhomes and condominium buildings, all of which are primarily constructed on a pre-sold basis. To fully serve customers of our homebuilding operations, we also operate a mortgage banking and title services business. We primarily conduct our operations in mature markets. Additionally, we generally grow our business through market share gains in our existing markets and by expanding into markets contiguous to our current active markets. Our four homebuilding reportable segments consist of the following regions:
| Mid Atlantic: | Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and Delaware | |
| North East: | New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania | |
| Mid East: | Kentucky, New York, Ohio, western Pennsylvania, Indiana and Illinois | |
| South East: | North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Florida |
Table of Contents
Our lot acquisition strategy is predicated upon avoiding the financial requirements and risks associated with direct land ownership and development. Historically, we have not engaged in land development to obtain finished lots for use in our homebuilding operations. Instead, we have acquired finished lots at market prices from various third party land developers pursuant to fixed price purchase agreements. These purchase agreements require deposits, typically ranging up to 10% of the aggregate purchase price of the finished lots, in the form of cash or letters of credit that may be forfeited if we fail to perform under the purchase agreement. This strategy has allowed us to maximize inventory turnover, which we believe enables us to minimize market risk and to operate with less capital, thereby enhancing rates of return on equity and total capital.
Our continued success is contingent upon our ability to control an adequate supply of finished lots on which to build and on our developers’ ability to timely deliver finished lots to meet the sales demands of our customers. However, economic conditions and the continued downturn of the homebuilding industry have exerted pressure on our developers’ ability to obtain acquisition and development financing or to raise equity investments to finance land development activity, potentially constraining our supply of finished lots. This pressure has necessitated that in certain specific strategic circumstances we deviate from our historical lot acquisition strategy and engage in joint venture arrangements with land developers or directly acquire raw ground already zoned for its intended use for development. Once we acquire control of any raw ground, we determine whether to sell the raw parcel to a developer and enter into a fixed price purchase agreement with the developer to purchase the finished lots, or whether to hire a developer to develop the land on our behalf. While joint venture arrangements and direct land development activity are not our preferred method of acquiring finished building lots, we may enter into additional transactions in the future on a limited basis where there exists a compelling strategic or prudent financial reason to do so. We expect, however, to continue to acquire substantially all of our finished lot inventory using fixed price purchase agreements with forfeitable deposits.
As of December 31, 2011, we controlled approximately 48,200 lots under purchase agreements with deposits in cash and letters of credit totaling approximately $202,300 and $3,200, respectively. Additionally, we controlled approximately 6,700 lots through joint venture limited liability corporations with an aggregate investment of approximately $89,500. Of the lots controlled by the joint ventures, approximately 2,700 were not under contract at December 31, 2011. Included in the number of controlled lots are approximately 10,600 lots for which we have recorded a contract land deposit impairment reserve of approximately $70,300 as of December 31, 2011. See Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements included herein for additional information regarding contract land deposits. Further, as of December 31, 2011, we had approximately $78,000 in land under development, that once fully developed will result in approximately 800 lots.
In addition to constructing homes primarily on a pre-sold basis and utilizing what we believe is a conservative lot acquisition strategy, we focus on obtaining and maintaining a leading market position in each market we serve. This strategy allows us to gain valuable efficiencies and competitive advantages in our markets, which we believe contributes to minimizing the adverse effects of regional economic cycles and provides growth opportunities within these markets.
Current Business Environment and Key Financial Results
The homebuilding environment remained challenging throughout 2011 as it continued to be impacted by the economic downturn and uncertainty that has been experienced over the past several years. The sluggish economy and high unemployment rates continue to weigh on consumer confidence and in turn, suppress housing demand. In addition, new home sales and selling prices continue to be pressured by market uncertainty surrounding home prices and by a more restrictive mortgage lending environment. As a result, our new orders, net of cancellations (“new orders”), for 2011 were down 2% from the prior year while our average new order selling price of $304.1 remained flat year over year. Gross profit margins in 2011 within our homebuilding business were negatively impacted by pricing pressure and increased construction and sales incentive costs year over year, declining to 17.1% from 18.2% in 2010.
Table of Contents
Consolidated revenues totaled $2,659,149 for 2011, a decrease of 13% from $3,041,892 in 2010. Net income declined 37% to $129,420 in 2011 from the prior year and diluted earnings per share declined 31% to $23.01 year over year.
We believe that significant economic uncertainties remain which could result in continued sales, pricing and gross margin pressure over the next several quarters. Further, our expectation of continued sales and pricing pressures has been factored into the impairment analysis of our homebuilding inventory, land under development and contract land deposits. We assess our land under development, including land under development held in joint ventures, and contract land deposits each quarter for impairment on a community-by-community basis by considering, among other items, overall market and economic conditions, and analyzing, as applicable, current sales absorption levels and recent sales’ gross profit. At this time, we do not believe that any of the land under development is impaired, and we consider the allowance for losses on contract land deposits reflected on the December 31, 2011 balance sheet to be adequate. Further, we believe that our homebuilding inventory is stated at the lower of cost or market. However, there can be no assurance that we will not incur impairment charges in the future due to unanticipated adverse changes in the economy or other events adversely affecting specific markets or the homebuilding industry. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, enacted on July 21, 2010, contains numerous provisions affecting residential mortgages and mortgage lending practices. Because these provisions are to be implemented through future rulemaking, the ultimate impact of such provisions on lending institutions, including our mortgage banking subsidiary, will depend on how the implementing rules are written. Despite these ongoing economic uncertainties, we believe that we are well positioned to withstand this market uncertainty and take advantage of opportunities that may arise due to the strength of our balance sheet and liquidity.
Homebuilding Operations
The following table summarizes the results of our consolidated homebuilding operations and certain operating activity for each of the last three years:
| Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||
| Revenues | $ | 2,611,195 | $ | 2,980,758 | $ | 2,683,467 | ||||||
| Cost of sales | $ | 2,165,625 | $ | 2,438,292 | $ | 2,185,733 | ||||||
| Gross profit margin percentage | 17.1 | % | 18.2 | % | 18.5 | % | ||||||
| Selling, general and administrative expenses | $ | 264,266 | $ | 257,394 | $ | 233,152 | ||||||
| Settlements (units) | 8,487 | 10,030 | 9,042 | |||||||||
| Average settlement price | $ | 307.5 | $ | 297.1 | $ | 296.4 | ||||||
| New orders (units) | 9,247 | 9,415 | 9,409 | |||||||||
| Average new order price | $ | 304.1 | $ | 304.0 | $ | 292.7 | ||||||
| Backlog (units) | 3,676 | 2,916 | 3,531 | |||||||||
| Average backlog price | $ | 315.8 | $ | 328.6 | $ | 304.9 | ||||||
| New order cancellation rate | 14 | % | 14 | % | 14 | % |
Consolidated Homebuilding Revenues
Homebuilding revenues for 2011 decreased 12% from 2010, as a result of a 15% decrease in the number of homes settled, offset partially by a 4% increase in the average settlement price year over year. The decrease in the number of homes settled was attributable to a 17% lower beginning backlog unit balance entering 2011 as compared to the same period in 2010, coupled with lower new orders in the first half of 2011 as compared to the first half of 2010. Average settlement prices in the current year were favorably impacted by an 8% higher average price of homes in the beginning backlog entering 2011 compared to the same period in 2010.
Homebuilding revenues for 2010 increased 11% from 2009, as a result of an 11%, increase in the number of homes settled. The increase in the number of homes settled was primarily attributable to the impact of the
Table of Contents
federal homebuyer tax credit which resulted in strong first quarter sales and increased settlements through the second quarter of 2010 as compared to the same period in 2009. In addition, the increase in settlements was also favorably impacted by a 12% higher beginning backlog unit balance entering 2010 compared to the same period in 2009.
Consolidated Homebuilding New Orders
New orders in 2011 decreased 2% when compared to the prior year, while the average sales price of new orders remained flat year over year. As discussed in the Overview section above, we continue to face selling pressure in most of our markets due to continuing economic uncertainty, driven by low consumer confidence and high unemployment rates. We expect to face continued sales and pricing pressure over the next several quarters until we see economic stability and improved consumer confidence levels.
New orders in 2010 remained flat with 2009 new orders, while the average sales price of new orders increased 4% year over year. New orders remained flat despite a strong first quarter in 2010, driven we believe by the federal homebuyer tax credit, and increased sales in the Indianapolis, IN, Orlando, FL and Raleigh, NC markets, each of which began operations in the second half of 2009. From the first quarter of 2010, we experienced a consistent decline in the number of new orders across all of our markets in each of the second, third and fourth quarters of 2010 compared to the respective periods in 2009. The increase in the average price of new orders year over year, was attributable to a product mix shift away from our attached products to our detached product which generally sell at higher price points.
Consolidated Homebuilding Gross Profit
Gross profit margins in 2011 declined to 17.1% from 18.2% in 2010. As discussed in the Overview section above, gross profit margins in 2011 were negatively impacted by pricing pressure and increased construction and sales incentive costs. We expect to experience gross profit margin pressure over at least the next several quarters due to significant market uncertainties as discussed in the Overview section above.
Gross profit margins in 2010 declined slightly to 18.2% from 18.5% in 2009. Gross profit margins in 2010 were negatively impacted by a contract land deposit impairment charge of approximately $4,300, or 14 basis points, while 2009 gross profit margins were favorably impacted by the recovery of approximately $6,500, or 24 basis points, of contract land deposits previously determined to be uncollectible.
Consolidated Homebuilding Selling, General and Administrative (“SG&A”)
SG&A expenses in 2011 increased approximately $6,900, or 3%, compared to 2010 and as a percentage of revenue increased to 10.1% in 2011 from 8.6% in the prior year. The increase in SG&A expenses was primarily attributable to an approximate $10,500 increase in equity-based compensation costs in 2011 compared to 2010. The increase in equity-based compensation resulted primarily from the favorable impact in 2010 of a reversal of approximately $6,600 in equity-based compensation expense related to an adjustment of our stock option forfeiture estimates to our actual forfeiture experience, while there was no forfeiture adjustment recorded in 2011. In addition, the increase in equity-based compensation expense in 2011 resulted from incurring a full year of expense in 2011 for non-qualified stock options and restricted share units granted in the second quarter of 2010 under the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan. This increase in SG&A expenses was partially offset by an approximate $4,100 decrease in personnel costs, primarily driven by a $7,800 decline in management incentives year over year. SG&A expenses increased as a percentage of revenue due to the aforementioned 12% decrease in revenues year over year.
SG&A expenses in 2010 increased approximately $24,200 compared to 2009, but remained flat as a percentage of revenue year over year. The increase in SG&A expenses was attributable to an approximate $13,500 increase in stock-based compensation costs in 2010 compared to the same period in 2009, due to the grant of non-qualified stock options and restricted share units under the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, offset partially by a reversal of approximately $6,600 in stock-based compensation expense previously recorded to
Table of Contents
SG&A expense as we adjusted our stock option forfeiture estimates to our actual forfeiture experience. SG&A expense was also higher due to an approximate $5,600 increase in management incentive costs as 2009 incentive plans were limited to payouts of 50% of incentive earned, while no similar restrictions were imposed on 2010 incentive compensation. In addition, SG&A expenses were impacted by an approximate $7,600 increase in selling and marketing costs year over year due primarily to an approximate $5,700 increase in advertising and model home costs attributable in part to an increase in the average number of active communities to 371 communities in 2010 from 355 communities in 2009.
Consolidated Homebuilding Backlog
Backlog units and dollars increased approximately 26% to 3,676 and 21% to $1,160,879, respectively, as of December 31, 2011 compared to 2,916 and $958,287 as of December 31, 2010. The increase in backlog units was primarily attributable to the decreased settlement activity in 2011 as discussed above. Backlog dollars were favorably impacted by the backlog unit increase, offset partially by a 4% decline in the average price of homes in backlog in 2011 compared to 2010.
Backlog, which represents homes sold but not yet settled with the customer, may be impacted by customer cancellations for various reasons that are beyond our control, such as failure to obtain mortgage financing, inability to sell an existing home, job loss, or a variety of other reasons. In any period, a portion of the cancellations that we experience are related to new sales that occurred during the same period, and a portion are related to sales that occurred in prior periods and therefore appeared in the opening backlog for the current period. Expressed as the total of all cancellations during the period as a percentage of gross sales during the period, our cancellation rate was approximately 14% in each of 2011, 2010 and 2009. Of a reporting quarter’s opening backlog, 6% during 2011 and 2010, and 7% during 2009, of that opening backlog balance cancelled during the fiscal quarter. We can provide no assurance that our historical cancellation rates are indicative of the actual cancellation rate that may occur in future periods. See “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of this Report.
Backlog units and dollars decreased approximately 17% to 2,916 and 11% to $958,287, respectively, as of December 31, 2010 compared to 3,531 and $1,076,437 as of December 31, 2009. The decrease in backlog units was primarily attributable to the increased settlement activity in 2010 as discussed above. Backlog dollars were negatively impacted by the decrease in backlog units.
Table of Contents
Reportable Homebuilding Segments
Homebuilding profit before tax includes all revenues and income generated from the sale of homes, less the cost of homes sold, SG&A expenses, and a corporate capital allocation charge determined at the corporate headquarters. The corporate capital allocation charge eliminates in consolidation, is based on the segment’s average net assets employed, and is charged using a consistent methodology in the years presented. The corporate capital allocation charged to the operating segment allows the Chief Operating Decision Maker to determine whether the operating segment’s results are providing the desired rate of return after covering our cost of capital. We record charges on contract land deposits when we determine that it is probable that recovery of the deposit is impaired. For segment reporting purposes, impairments on contract land deposits are generally charged to the operating segment upon the determination to terminate a finished lot purchase agreement with the developer or to restructure a lot purchase agreement resulting in the forfeiture of the deposit. We evaluate our entire net contract land deposit portfolio for impairment each quarter. For additional information regarding our contract land deposit impairment analysis, see the Critical Accounting Policies section within this Management Discussion and Analysis. For presentation purposes below, the contract land deposit reserve at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, has been allocated to the reportable segments to show contract land deposits on a net basis. The net contract land deposit balances below also includes approximately $3,200, $6,600 and $4,900 at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively, of letters of credit issued as deposits in lieu of cash. The following tables summarize certain homebuilding operating activity by reportable segment for each of the last three years:
Selected Segment Financial Data:
| Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||
| Revenues: | ||||||||||||
| Mid Atlantic | $ | 1,582,826 | $ | 1,780,521 | $ | 1,661,244 | ||||||
| North East | 221,146 | 287,561 | 254,654 | |||||||||
| Mid East | 549,384 | 632,377 | 505,431 | |||||||||
| South East | 257,839 | 280,299 | 262,138 | |||||||||
| Total | $ | 2,611,195 | $ | 2,980,758 | $ | 2,683,467 | ||||||
| Gross profit margin: | ||||||||||||
| Mid Atlantic | $ | 286,266 | $ | 338,586 | $ | 307,525 | ||||||
| North East | 37,220 | 48,528 | 42,282 | |||||||||
| Mid East | 85,385 | 109,579 | 85,931 | |||||||||
| South East | 42,116 | 41,074 | 36,490 | |||||||||
| Total | $ | 450,987 | $ | 537,767 | $ | 472,228 | ||||||
| Segment profit: | ||||||||||||
| Mid Atlantic | $ | 148,373 | $ | 209,496 | $ | 185,861 | ||||||
| North East | 13,463 | 25,090 | 19,572 | |||||||||
| Mid East | 27,194 | 56,882 | 38,012 | |||||||||
| South East | 14,162 | 10,870 | 7,384 | |||||||||
| Total | $ | 203,192 | $ | 302,338 | $ | 250,829 | ||||||
| Gross profit margin percentage: | ||||||||||||
| Mid Atlantic | 18.1 | % | 19.0 | % | 18.5 | % | ||||||
| North East | 16.8 | % | 16.9 | % | 16.6 | % | ||||||
| Mid East | 15.5 | % | 17.3 | % | 17.0 | % | ||||||
| South East | 16.3 | % | 14.7 | % | 13.9 | % |
Segment Operating Activity:
| Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Units | Average Price | Units | Average Price | Units | Average Price | |||||||||||||||||||
| Settlements: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mid Atlantic | 4,238 | $ | 373.4 | 5,043 | $ | 353.0 | 4,722 | $ | 351.8 | |||||||||||||||
| North East | 728 | $ | 303.6 | 920 | $ | 312.5 | 882 | $ | 288.7 | |||||||||||||||
| Mid East | 2,335 | $ | 235.1 | 2,886 | $ | 219.0 | 2,323 | $ | 216.3 | |||||||||||||||
| South East | 1,186 | $ | 217.1 | 1,181 | $ | 237.2 | 1,115 | $ | 235.1 | |||||||||||||||
| Total | 8,487 | $ | 307.5 | 10,030 | $ | 297.1 | 9,042 | $ | 296.4 | |||||||||||||||
Table of Contents
| Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Units | Average Price | Units | Average Price | Units | Average Price | |||||||||||||||||||
| New orders, net of cancellations: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mid Atlantic | 4,616 | $ | 364.2 | 4,775 | $ | 365.1 | 4,809 | $ | 347.4 | |||||||||||||||
| North East | 872 | $ | 300.1 | 827 | $ | 317.3 | 904 | $ | 293.5 | |||||||||||||||
| Mid East | 2,412 | $ | 238.7 | 2,656 | $ | 221.3 | 2,552 | $ | 217.3 | |||||||||||||||
| South East | 1,347 | $ | 218.1 | 1,157 | $ | 231.9 | 1,144 | $ | 230.2 | |||||||||||||||
| Total | 9,247 | $ | 304.1 | 9,415 | $ | 304.0 | 9,409 | $ | 292.7 | |||||||||||||||
| Backlog: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mid Atlantic | 1,973 | $ | 370.3 | 1,595 | $ | 396.2 | 1,863 | $ | 359.0 | |||||||||||||||
| North East | 376 | $ | 303.0 | 232 | $ | 315.9 | 325 | $ | 302.8 | |||||||||||||||
| Mid East | 807 | $ | 245.6 | 730 | $ | 234.7 | 960 | $ | 224.7 | |||||||||||||||
| South East | 520 | $ | 227.0 | 359 | $ | 227.6 | 383 | $ | 244.1 | |||||||||||||||
| Total | 3,676 | $ | 315.8 | 2,916 | $ | 328.6 | 3,531 | $ | 304.9 | |||||||||||||||
Operating Data:
| Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||
| New order cancellation rate: | ||||||||||||
| Mid Atlantic | 13.3 | % | 11.3 | % | 14.4 | % | ||||||
| North East | 13.1 | % | 16.4 | % | 14.5 | % | ||||||
| Mid East | 14.6 | % | 15.0 | % | 13.9 | % | ||||||
| South East | 13.0 | % | 18.9 | % | 14.8 | % | ||||||
| Average active communities: | ||||||||||||
| Mid Atlantic | 188 | 171 | 168 | |||||||||
| North East | 34 | 33 | 37 | |||||||||
| Mid East | 106 | 108 | 100 | |||||||||
| South East | 56 | 59 | 50 | |||||||||
| Total | 384 | 371 | 355 | |||||||||
Homebuilding Inventory:
| As of December 31, | ||||||||||||
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||
| Sold inventory: | ||||||||||||
| Mid Atlantic | $ | 233,458 | $ | 182,128 | $ | 219,885 | ||||||
| North East | 35,502 | 20,703 | 36,315 | |||||||||
| Mid East | 52,141 | 43,506 | 60,107 | |||||||||
| South East | 35,410 | 23,711 | 21,521 | |||||||||
| Total (1) | $ | 356,511 | $ | 270,048 | $ | 337,828 | ||||||
| Unsold lots and housing units inventory: | ||||||||||||
| Mid Atlantic | $ | 53,587 | $ | 42,682 | $ | 47,120 | ||||||
| North East | 4,041 | 3,687 | 4,152 | |||||||||
| Mid East | 7,830 | 11,089 | 16,353 | |||||||||
| South East | 14,917 | 8,967 | 4,783 | |||||||||
| Total (1) | $ | 80,375 | $ | 66,425 | $ | 72,408 | ||||||
Table of Contents
| (1) | The reconciling items between segment inventory and consolidated inventory include certain consolidation adjustments necessary to convert the reportable segments’ results, which are predominantly maintained on a cash basis, to a full accrual basis for external financial statement presentation purposes and are not allocated to our operating segment. |
|---|
| Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||
| Unsold inventory impairments: | ||||||||||||
| Mid Atlantic | $ | 1,045 | $ | 1,520 | $ | 1,286 | ||||||
| North East | 246 | 420 | 598 | |||||||||
| Mid East | 554 | 434 | 592 | |||||||||
| South East | 228 | 820 | 268 | |||||||||
| Total | $ | 2,073 | $ | 3,194 | $ | 2,744 | ||||||
Lots Controlled and Land Deposits:
| As of December 31, | ||||||||||||
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||
| Total lots controlled: | ||||||||||||
| Mid Atlantic | 29,402 | 30,201 | 26,938 | |||||||||
| North East | 4,751 | 4,025 | 3,898 | |||||||||
| Mid East | 11,879 | 11,061 | 10,163 | |||||||||
| South East | 6,944 | 7,023 | 5,338 | |||||||||
| Total | 52,976 | 52,310 | 46,337 | |||||||||
| Lots included in impairment reserve: | ||||||||||||
| Mid Atlantic | 5,724 | 5,973 | 6,575 | |||||||||
| North East | 658 | 594 | 846 | |||||||||
| Mid East | 2,409 | 2,055 | 2,022 | |||||||||
| South East | 1,765 | 1,678 | 1,363 | |||||||||
| Total | 10,556 | 10,300 | 10,806 | |||||||||
| Contract land deposits, net | ||||||||||||
| Mid Atlantic | $ | 101,674 | $ | 82,165 | $ | 38,729 | ||||||
| North East | 11,502 | 8,525 | 3,513 | |||||||||
| Mid East | 16,122 | 11,876 | 5,242 | |||||||||
| South East | 5,860 | 4,830 | 3,161 | |||||||||
| Total | $ | 135,158 | $ | 107,396 | $ | 50,645 | ||||||
| Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||
| Contract land deposit impairments: | ||||||||||||
| Mid Atlantic | $ | 6,741 | $ | 9,150 | $ | 18,425 | ||||||
| North East | 818 | 4,898 | 2,489 | |||||||||
| Mid East | 493 | 1,686 | 7,244 | |||||||||
| South East | 311 | 4,618 | 5,236 | |||||||||
| Total | $ | 8,363 | $ | 20,352 | $ | 33,394 | ||||||
Table of Contents
Mid Atlantic
2011 versus 2010
The Mid Atlantic segment had an approximate $61,100, or 29%, decrease in segment profit in 2011 compared to 2010. Revenues decreased approximately $197,700, or 11%, in 2011 from 2010 on a 16% decrease in the number of units settled, offset partially by a 6% increase in the average settlement price year over year. The decrease in the number of homes settled was attributable to a 14% lower beginning backlog unit balance entering 2011 as compared to the same period in 2010, coupled with a 12% decline in new orders in the first half of 2011 compared to the first half of 2010. Average settlement prices in the current year were favorably impacted by a 10% higher average price of homes in the beginning backlog entering 2011 compared to the same period in 2010. The segment’s gross profit margin percentage decreased to 18.1% in 2011 from 19.0% in 2010. Segment profit and gross profit margins were negatively impacted by pricing pressure and increased construction and sales incentive costs in addition to the reduced settlement volume year over year and its impact on our ability to leverage certain operating costs.
Segment new orders in 2011 declined approximately 3% from 2010, while the average sales price of new orders in 2011 remained flat year over year. New orders were lower despite a 10% increase in the number of active communities year over year for the reasons previously discussed in the Overview section above. New orders were also negatively impacted by an increase in the cancellation rate to 13.3% in 2011 from 11.3% in 2010.
2010 versus 2009
The Mid Atlantic segment had an approximate $23,600, or 13%, increase in segment profit in 2010 compared to 2009. Revenues increased approximately $119,300, or 7%, in 2010 from 2009 on a 7% increase in the number of units settled. The increase in units settled was attributable to the impact of the federal homebuyer tax credit which we believe resulted in higher first quarter sales and increased settlements through the second quarter of 2010 as compared to the same period in 2009. In addition, 2010 settlements were also favorably impacted by a 5% higher beginning backlog unit balance entering 2010 as compared to 2009. The segment’s gross profit margin percentage increased to 19.0% in 2010 from 18.5% in 2009. Segment profit and gross profit margins were favorably impacted by lower contract land deposit impairment charges in 2010 of $9,150, or 51 basis points, compared to $18,425, or 111 basis points in 2009.
Segment new orders in 2010 declined approximately 1%, while the average sales price of new orders in 2010 increased approximately 5%, as compared to new orders and the average sales price in 2009. The increase in the average price of new orders was attributable to a product mix shift away from our attached products to our detached product which generally sell at higher price points.
North East
2011 versus 2010
The North East segment had an approximate $11,600, or 46% decrease in segment profit in 2011 compared to 2010. Revenues decreased approximately $66,400, or 23%, in 2011 from 2010. The decrease in revenues was primarily due to a 21% decrease in the number of units settled, which was attributable to a 29% lower backlog unit balance entering 2011 as compared to the backlog unit balance entering 2010. In addition, settlements were negatively impacted by a slower backlog turnover rate in 2011 compared to 2010. Gross profit margins remained relatively flat period over period, as lower contract land deposit impairment charges in 2011 of $818, or 37 basis points, compared to 2010 of $4,898, or 170 basis points, were offset by pricing pressure and increased construction and sales incentive costs year over year. In addition, gross profit margins and segment profit were negatively affected by the lower settlement volume year over year which impacted our ability to leverage certain operating costs.
Table of Contents
Segment new orders in 2011 increased 5% compared to 2010, while the average sales price of new orders decreased 5% year over year. New orders were favorably impacted by the increase in the number of active communities year over year. Average selling prices were lower year over year due to a product mix shift from our detached product to our attached product which generally sells at lower price points.
2010 versus 2009
The North East segment had an approximate $5,500, or 28% increase in segment profit in 2010 compared to 2009. Revenues increased approximately $32,900, or 13%, in 2010 from 2009. Revenues increased due to a 4% increase in the number of units settled and an 8% increase in the average settlement price year over year. The increase in units settled was primarily attributable to the impact of the federal homebuyer tax credit which we believe resulted in higher first quarter sales and increased settlements through the second quarter of 2010 as compared to the same period in 2009. The increase in the average settlement price resulted from a product mix shift away from our attached products to our detached product, which generally sells at higher price points. Gross profit margins remained relatively flat period over period, as the higher contract land deposit impairment charges in 2010 of $4,898, or 170 basis points, compared to 2009 of $2,489, or 98 basis points, were offset by improved leveraging of fixed operating costs due to higher settlement volume year over year.
Segment new orders in 2010 decreased 9% compared to 2009, while the average sales price of new orders increased 8% year over year. Subsequent to the April 30, 2010 expiration of the federal homebuyer tax credit, we experienced a decline in new orders in each quarter of 2010 as compared to the respective quarters of 2009. The average sales price of new orders has been favorably impacted by a product mix shift away from our attached products to our detached product, which generally sells at higher price points.
Mid East
2011 versus 2010
The Mid East segment had an approximate $29,700, or 52%, decrease in segment profit in 2011 compared to 2010, driven by a decrease in revenues of approximately $83,000, or 13%, year over year. The decline in revenues was primarily due to a 19% decrease in the number of units settled, offset partially by a 7% increase in the average price of homes settled year over year. Units settled in 2011 were negatively impacted by a 24% lower beginning backlog unit balance entering 2011 compared to the same period in 2010 coupled with a 15% decline in new orders in the first half of 2011 compared to the first half of 2010. The increase in the average settlement price in 2011 is attributable to a 4% higher average price of homes in the beginning backlog year over year and an 8% higher average price of new orders in the first half of 2011 compared to the same period in 2010. Gross profit margins declined to 15.5% in 2011 from 17.3% in 2010. Gross profit margins and segment profit were negatively impacted by pricing pressure and increased construction and sales incentive costs year over year and by the lower settlement volume year over year which impacted our ability to leverage certain operating costs.
Segment new orders in 2011 decreased 9% compared to 2010, while the average new order selling price increased 8% year over year. New orders were lower year over year due to the economic circumstances discussed in the O_verview_ section above. In addition, new orders were negatively impacted by a lower number of active communities in certain of our markets year over year, most notably the Ohio and New York regions which were down 10% and 11% respectively. The increase in the average selling price is attributable to a shift in mix to higher priced communities in certain markets.
2010 versus 2009
The Mid East segment had an approximate $18,900, or 50%, increase in segment profit in 2010 compared to 2009. The increase in segment profit was driven by an increase in revenues of approximately $126,900, or 25%, in 2010 compared to 2009 primarily due to a 24% increase in the number of units settled year over year. The increase in units settled was attributable to the impact of the federal homebuyer tax credit which we believe resulted in higher first quarter sales and increased settlements through the second quarter of 2010 as
Table of Contents
compared to the same period in 2009. In addition, settlements were favorably impacted by a 31% higher beginning backlog entering 2010 compared to the same period in 2009. Gross profit margins remained relatively flat year over year, at 17.3% in 2010 compared to 17.0% in 2009.
Segment new orders and the average new order selling price in 2010 increased 4% and 2%, respectively compared to 2009. New orders were favorably impacted primarily by the 178 new orders in 2010 in Indianapolis, IN, market which began operations in the fourth quarter of 2009. This increase was offset partially by an increase in the cancellation rate in both the third and fourth quarters of 2010 to 21% in each quarter as compared to 15% and 13% in the third and fourth quarters of 2009, respectively.
South East
2011 versus 2010
The South East segment had an approximate $3,300, or 30%, increase in segment profit in 2011 compared to 2010, despite an 8% decrease in revenues year over year. The number of units settled remained flat year over year, while the average price of homes settled in 2011 decreased 9% compared to 2010. The decrease in the average settlement price in 2011 is attributable to the 7% lower average price of units in backlog entering 2011 compared to the same period in 2010. Gross profit margins increased to 16.3% in 2011 from 14.7% in 2010 due primarily to lower contract land deposit impairment charges in 2011 of $311, or 12 basis points, compared to $4,618, or 165 basis points, in 2010. Despite this gross profit margin improvement year over year, the South East segment’s gross profit margins, similar to our other segments, have been negatively impacted by pricing pressure and increased construction and sales incentive costs year over year.
Segment new orders increased 16% in 2011 compared to 2010, while the average selling price of new orders decreased 6% year over year. The increase in new orders is primarily attributable to an increase in the number of active communities in the Raleigh, NC and Orlando, FL markets. In addition, new orders were favorably impacted by a decline in the cancellation rate in the South East segment to 13% in 2011 from 19% in 2010. The decrease in the average selling price is attributable to product mix shift to lower priced, more affordable homes in certain of our markets in the South East segment.
2010 versus 2009
The South East segment had an approximate $3,500, or 47%, increase in segment profit in 2010 compared to 2009. The increase in segment profit was driven by an increase of approximately $18,200, or 7%, in revenues in 2010 from 2009 due primarily to a 6% increase in the number of units settled. The increase in units settled was primarily attributable to the impact of the federal homebuyer tax credit which we believe resulted in higher first quarter sales and increased settlements through the second quarter of 2010 as compared to the same period in 2009. In addition, settlements were favorably impacted by an 8% higher beginning backlog entering 2010 compared to the same period in 2009. Gross profit margins increased to 14.7% in 2010 from 13.9% in 2009 due in part to lower contract land deposit impairment charges in 2010 of $4,618, or 165 basis points, compared to $5,236, or 200 basis points in 2009, coupled with improved leveraging of fixed operating costs due to higher settlement volume year over year.
Segment new orders and the average sales price of new orders for 2010 remained relatively flat with 2009. New orders were favorably impacted by an 18% increase in the average number of active communities year over year, and by the increase of approximately 80 new orders in 2010 in the Orlando, FL and Raleigh, NC markets, in which we began operations in the third quarter of 2009. These favorable variances were offset by higher cancellations rates in the segment in both the third and fourth quarters of 2010 of 32% and 19% respectively, compared to 14% and 18% for the respective quarters of 2009 and lower absorption rates year over year. Market conditions continued to deteriorate in this segment throughout 2010. The challenging market conditions, coupled with the expiration of the federal homebuyer tax credit in April of 2010, attributed to the segment’s higher cancellation rates and fewer new orders in each the second, third and fourth quarters of 2010 as compared to the respective quarters in 2009.
Table of Contents
Homebuilding Segment Reconciliations to Consolidated Homebuilding Operations
In addition to the corporate capital allocation and contract land deposit impairments discussed above, the other reconciling items between homebuilding segment profit and homebuilding consolidated profit before tax include unallocated corporate overhead (which includes all management incentive compensation), stock-based compensation expense, consolidation adjustments and external corporate interest expense. Our overhead functions, such as accounting, treasury, human resources, etc., are centrally performed and the costs are not allocated to our operating segments. Consolidation adjustments consist of such items to convert the reportable segments’ results, which are predominantly maintained on a cash basis, to a full accrual basis for external financial statement presentation purposes, and are not allocated to our operating segments. Likewise, stock-based compensation expense is not charged to the operating segments. External corporate interest expense is primarily comprised of interest charges on our senior notes, and is not charged to the operating segments because the charges are included in the corporate capital allocation discussed above.
| Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||
| Homebuilding Consolidated Gross Profit: | ||||||||||||
| Homebuilding Mid Atlantic | $ | 286,266 | $ | 338,586 | $ | 307,525 | ||||||
| Homebuilding North East | 37,220 | 48,528 | 42,282 | |||||||||
| Homebuilding Mid East | 85,385 | 109,579 | 85,931 | |||||||||
| Homebuilding South East | 42,116 | 41,074 | 36,490 | |||||||||
| Consolidation adjustments and other (1) | (5,417 | ) | 4,699 | 25,506 | ||||||||
| Consolidated homebuilding gross profit | $ | 445,570 | $ | 542,466 | $ | 497,734 | ||||||
| Homebuilding Consolidated Profit Before Tax: | ||||||||||||
| Homebuilding Mid Atlantic | $ | 148,373 | $ | 209,496 | $ | 185,861 | ||||||
| Homebuilding North East | 13,463 | 25,090 | 19,572 | |||||||||
| Homebuilding Mid East | 27,194 | 56,882 | 38,012 | |||||||||
| Homebuilding South East | 14,162 | 10,870 | 7,384 | |||||||||
| Reconciling items: | ||||||||||||
| Contract land deposit impairment reserve (2) | (2,878 | ) | 16,206 | 42,939 | ||||||||
| Equity-based compensation expense (3) | (61,359 | ) | (50,357 | ) | (43,495 | ) | ||||||
| Corporate capital allocation (4) | 71,226 | 65,971 | 61,753 | |||||||||
| Unallocated corporate overhead (5) | (45,355 | ) | (55,992 | ) | (44,103 | ) | ||||||
| Consolidation adjustments and other | 20,477 | 15,848 | 4,970 | |||||||||
| Corporate interest expense (6) | (715 | ) | (4,546 | ) | (9,810 | ) | ||||||
| Reconciling items sub-total | (18,604 | ) | (12,870 | ) | 12,254 | |||||||
| Homebuilding consolidated profit before taxes | $ | 184,588 | $ | 289,468 | $ | 263,083 | ||||||
| (1) | The year over year variances in consolidation adjustments and other related primarily to changes to the contract land deposit impairment reserve, which are not allocated to the reportable segments. |
|---|
| (2) | This item represents changes to the contract land deposit impairment reserve, which are not allocated to the reportable segments. The 2011 and 2010 variances are attributable to year over year reductions in amounts allocated to our operating segments that had been previously reserved. |
|---|
| (3) | The increase in equity-based compensation expense in 2011 compared to the prior year was primarily due to recognizing a full year of expense in 2011 related to non-qualified stock options and restricted share units granted in the second quarter of 2010 under the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan. In addition, stock-based compensation expense in 2010 was reduced by an approximate $7,000 pre-tax reversal of stock-based compensation expense attributable to the adjustment of our option forfeiture estimates based on our actual forfeiture experience. |
|---|
Table of Contents
| (4) | This item represents the elimination of the corporate capital allocation charge included in the respective homebuilding reportable segments. The corporate capital allocation charge is based on the segment’s monthly average asset balance, and is as follows for the years presented: |
|---|
| Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||
| Homebuilding Mid Atlantic | $ | 48,697 | $ | 44,758 | $ | 40,765 | ||||||
| Homebuilding North East | 5,763 | 5,926 | 6,473 | |||||||||
| Homebuilding Mid East | 11,074 | 9,657 | 8,863 | |||||||||
| Homebuilding South East | 5,692 | 5,630 | 5,652 | |||||||||
| Total | $ | 71,226 | $ | 65,971 | $ | 61,753 | ||||||
| (5) | The decrease in unallocated corporate overhead in 2011 from 2010 was primarily attributable to reduced management incentive costs year over year. The increase in costs in 2010 from 2009 was attributable to higher personnel levels year over year and to higher management incentive costs as the 2009 incentive plan was limited to a payout of 50% of the maximum bonus opportunity while no similar restrictions were imposed on 2010 incentive compensation. |
|---|
| (6) | The decrease in corporate interest expense in 2011 from 2010 was attributable to the redemption upon maturity of the outstanding senior notes in the second quarter of 2010 and the termination of the working capital credit facility in the fourth quarter of 2010. |
|---|
Mortgage Banking Segment
We conduct our mortgage banking activity through NVR Mortgage Finance, Inc. (“NVRM”), a wholly owned subsidiary. NVRM focuses almost exclusively on serving the homebuilding segment’s customer base. Following is a table of financial and statistical data for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009:
| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||
| Loan closing volume: | ||||||||||||
| Total principal | $ | 1,868,472 | $ | 2,219,946 | $ | 2,060,376 | ||||||
| Loan volume mix: | ||||||||||||
| Adjustable rate mortgages | 9 | % | 4 | % | 1 | % | ||||||
| Fixed-rate mortgages | 91 | % | 96 | % | 99 | % | ||||||
| Operating profit: | ||||||||||||
| Segment profit | $ | 26,102 | $ | 35,704 | $ | 38,138 | ||||||
| Equity-based compensation expense | (3,114 | ) | (2,779 | ) | (2,807 | ) | ||||||
| Mortgage banking income before tax | $ | 22,988 | $ | 32,925 | $ | 35,331 | ||||||
| Capture rate: | 88 | % | 90 | % | 91 | % | ||||||
| Mortgage banking fees: | ||||||||||||
| Net gain on sale of loans | $ | 34,632 | $ | 46,225 | $ | 46,960 | ||||||
| Title services | 12,769 | 14,108 | 12,787 | |||||||||
| Servicing fees | 553 | 801 | 634 | |||||||||
| $ | 47,954 | $ | 61,134 | $ | 60,381 | |||||||
Table of Contents
2011 versus 2010
Loan closing volume for the year ended December 31, 2011 decreased 16% from 2010. The 2011 decrease was primarily attributable to an 18% decrease in the number of units closed, partially offset by a 3% increase in the average loan amount year over year. The decrease in the number of units closed and the increase in the average loan amount are primarily attributable to the aforementioned decrease in the homebuilding segment’s number of units settled and the increase in the average settlement prices in 2011 as compared to 2010. The decrease in the number of units closed was also partially attributable to a 2 percentage point decrease in the number of loans closed by NVRM for our homebuyers who obtain a mortgage to purchase the home (“Capture Rate”), which decreased to 88% compared to 90% in 2010.
Segment profit for the year ended December 31, 2011 decreased approximately $9,600 from 2010. The decrease in segment profit was primarily attributable to an approximate $13,200 decrease in mortgage banking fees, partially offset by an approximate $3,350 decrease in general and administrative expenses. The decrease in mortgage banking fees was primarily attributable to the aforementioned 16% decrease in closed loan volume. The decrease in general and administrative expenses is primarily attributable to an approximate $1,200 decrease in the provision for loan loss and an approximate $1,500 decrease in management incentive compensation compared to the same period in 2010.
2010 versus 2009
Loan closing volume for the year ended December 31, 2010 increased 8% from 2009. The 2010 increase was primarily attributable to a 7% increase in the number of units closed and a 1% increase in the average loan amount year over year. The increases in the number of units closed and the average loan amount are attributable to the increase in the homebuilding segment’s number of units settled and the increase in the average settlement prices in 2010 as compared to 2009.
Segment profit for the year ended December 31, 2010 decreased approximately $2,400 from 2009. The decrease in segment profit was primarily attributable to an approximate $5,800 increase in general and administrative expenses. The increase in general and administrative expenses was primarily the result of a $6,000 increase in the provision for loan loss compared to 2009. The $5,800 increase in general and administrative expenses was partially offset by an approximate $2,500 increase in interest income primarily as a result of the change in our loan sale distribution channels.
Mortgage Banking – Other
We sell all of the loans we originate into the secondary mortgage market. Insofar as we underwrite our originated loans to the standards and specifications of the ultimate investor, we have no further financial obligations from the issuance of loans, except in certain limited instances where early payment default occurs. Those underwriting standards are typically equal to or more stringent than the underwriting standards required by FNMA, VA and FHA. NVRM has always maintained an allowance for losses on mortgage loans originated that reflects our judgment of the present loss exposure in the loans that we have originated and sold. The allowance is calculated based on an analysis of historical experience and anticipated losses on mortgages held for investment, real estate owned, and specific expected loan repurchases or indemnifications. For the period January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2011, we have originated approximately $19,032,000 of mortgage loans and have cumulative actual charges incurred related to mortgage indemnifications and repurchases of approximately $5,800 during that period. Because we sell all of our loans and do not service them, there is often a substantial delay between the time that a loan goes into default and the time that the investor requests us to reimburse them for losses incurred because of the default. We believe that all of the loans that we originate are underwritten to the standards and specifications of the ultimate investor to whom we sell our originated loans. We employ a quality control department to ensure that our underwriting controls are effective, and further assess the underwriting function as part of our assessment of internal controls over financial reporting. At December 31, 2011, we had an allowance for loan losses of approximately $12,850. Although we consider the allowance for loan losses reflected on the December 31, 2011 balance sheet to be adequate, there can be no assurance that this allowance will prove to be adequate to cover losses on loans previously originated.
Table of Contents
Historically, we sold a substantial number of our loans to Bank of America through their correspondent lending program. However, in October 2011, Bank of America discontinued their correspondent lending program. As a result, this decreased the number of investors available in our loan sale distribution channels. The remaining correspondent investors are now dealing with a larger volume of loans and are performing a much more comprehensive review of loan files prior to purchase, which has resulted in loans remaining in inventory for a longer period of time before being sold. Prior to Bank of America discontinuing their correspondent lending program, loans were typically sold within 30 days. This time period has now increased to 30 to 60 days, resulting in an increase in the mortgages held for sale balance included in the consolidated balance sheet for December 31, 2011 compared to the prior year.
NVRM is dependent on our homebuilding segment’s customers for business. As new orders and selling prices of the homebuilding segment decline, NVRM’s operations will also be adversely affected. In addition, the mortgage segment’s operating results may be adversely affected in future periods due to the continued tightening and volatility of the credit markets as well as increased regulation of mortgage lending practices.
Seasonality
Overall, we do not experience material seasonal fluctuations in sales, settlements or loan closings.
Effective Tax Rate
Our consolidated effective tax rate in 2011, 2010 and 2009 was 37.65%, 36.10% and 35.60%, respectively. The 2009 effective tax rate was favorably impacted by the expiration of certain tax reserves, the receipt of tax refunds from the amendment of certain prior year federal and state returns, and a tax benefit related to compensation expense recorded for certain outstanding option grants that were previously considered to be a permanent non-deductible tax difference.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements Pending Adoption
In May 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2011-04, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820) – Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS, which amends Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820 providing consistent guidance on fair value measurement and disclosure requirements between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards. ASU 2011-04 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. The implementation of ASU 2011-04 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.
In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-08, Intangibles – Goodwill and Other (Topic 350) – Testing Goodwill for Impairment, which amends ASC 350 to first assess qualitative factors before performing the quantitative goodwill impairment testing. ASU 2011-08 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. The implementation of ASU 2011-08 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Lines of Credit and Notes Payable
Our homebuilding segment provides for its working capital cash requirements using cash generated from operations. Effective October 27, 2010, we voluntarily terminated our $300,000 unsecured working capital revolving credit facility which was set to expire on December 6, 2010. We currently do not intend to enter into a new credit facility; however, effective October 27, 2010, we entered into an uncommitted collateralized letter of credit facility to issue letters of credit in our ordinary course of business. See Note 11 in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for further discussion of letters of credit.
Table of Contents
Our mortgage subsidiary, NVRM, provides for its mortgage origination and other operating activities using cash generated from operations, borrowings from its parent company, NVR, as well as a revolving mortgage repurchase facility, which is non-recourse to NVR. On August 2, 2011, NVRM entered into a repurchase agreement with U.S. Bank National Association which provides for loan purchases up to $25,000, subject to certain sub-limits (“Repurchase Agreement”). The Repurchase Agreement replaced our expiring $125,000 revolving mortgage repurchase agreement. The purpose of the Repurchase Agreement is to finance the origination of mortgage loans by NVRM. The Repurchase Agreement expires on August 1, 2012.
Advances under the Repurchase Agreement carry a Pricing Rate based on the Libor Rate plus the Libor Margin, or the Default Pricing Rate, as determined under the Repurchase Agreement, provided that the Pricing Rate shall not be less than 3.75%. There are several restrictions on purchased loans, including that they cannot be sold to others, they cannot be pledged to anyone other than the agent, and they cannot support any other borrowing or repurchase agreement. The Repurchase Agreement contains various affirmative and negative covenants. The negative covenants include among others, certain limitations on transactions involving acquisitions, mergers, the incurrence of debt, sale of assets and creation of liens upon any of its Mortgage Notes. Additional covenants include (i) a tangible net worth requirement, (ii) a minimum liquidity requirement, (iii) a minimum net income requirement, and (iv) a maximum leverage ratio requirement. The Company was in compliance with all covenants under the Repurchase Agreement at December 31, 2011. At December 31, 2011 there was no debt outstanding under the Repurchase Agreement and there were no borrowing base limitations. The average Pricing Rate for amounts outstanding under the previous repurchase agreement at December 31, 2010 was 4.1%.
Equity Repurchases
In addition to funding growth in our homebuilding and mortgage banking operations, we historically have used a substantial portion of our excess liquidity to repurchase outstanding shares of our common stock in open market and privately negotiated transactions. This ongoing repurchase activity is conducted pursuant to publicly announced Board authorizations, and is typically executed in accordance with the safe-harbor provisions of Rule 10b-18 promulgated under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In addition, the Board resolutions authorizing us to repurchase shares of our common stock specifically prohibit us from purchasing shares from our officers, directors, Profit Sharing/401K Plan Trust or Employee Stock Ownership Plan Trust. The repurchase program assists us in accomplishing our primary objective, creating increases in shareholder value. See Part II, Item 5 of this Form 10-K for disclosure of amounts repurchased during the fourth quarter of 2011. For the year ended December 31, 2011, we repurchased 1,017,588 shares of our common stock at an aggregate purchase price of approximately $689,300. As of December 31, 2011, we had approximately $319,900 available under two board approved repurchase authorizations.
Cash Flows
For the year ended December 31, 2011, cash and cash equivalents decreased by $712,956. Net cash provided by operating activities was $1,463. Cash provided by homebuilding operations was used to fund the increase to homebuilding inventory of $99,527, as a result of an increase in the units under construction at the end of 2011 as compared to the same period in 2010. In addition, cash was used to fund the $42,385 increase in contract land deposits year over year. The presentation of operating cash flows was reduced by $22,835, which is the amount of the excess tax benefit realized from stock option exercises and deferred compensation plan distributions during 2011 and credited directly to additional paid in capital. Investing activities during 2011 used net cash of $61,866, primarily as a result of our investment in a joint venture with Morgan Stanley Real Estate Investing of $61,250 (see Note 3 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements included herein for further discussion). In addition, cash was used to purchase $11,444 in property, plant and equipment during 2011. These uses of cash from investing activities were partially offset by capital distributions received from our unconsolidated joint ventures. Net cash used by financing activities was $652,553. During 2011, we spent approximately $689,300 to repurchase 1,017,588 shares of our common stock under our ongoing common stock
Table of Contents
repurchase program as discussed above. In addition, cash was used in the repayment of approximately $90,000 of the outstanding NVRM repurchase facility due to our decision to substantially reduce the available credit capacity under the Repurchase Agreement. These uses of cash from financing activities were offset partially by equity-based activity which provided stock option exercise proceeds of $106,999 and the realization of $22,835 in excess income tax benefits from stock option exercises and deferred compensation plan distributions.
For the year ended December 31, 2010, cash and cash equivalents decreased by $56,400. Net cash provided by operating activities was $55,388. Cash was provided primarily by homebuilding operations and was used to fund increases to contract land deposits. The presentation of operating cash flows was reduced by $63,558, which is the amount of the excess tax benefit realized from stock option exercises and deferred compensation plan distributions during 2010 and credited directly to additional paid in capital. Investing activities provided net cash of $212,440, primarily due to the net redemption of $219,535 in marketable securities at maturity during the year. Net cash used by financing activities was $324,228. During 2010, we repurchased 644,562 shares of our common stock at an aggregate purchase price of $417,079 under our ongoing common stock repurchase program. In addition, we redeemed the remaining outstanding 5% Senior Notes due 2010, totaling $133,370, upon their maturity on June 15, 2010. Stock option exercise activity during 2010 provided $77,492 in exercise proceeds and we realized $63,558 in excess income tax benefits from the exercise of stock options and deferred compensation plan distributions. We also increased net borrowings under the mortgage warehouse facility by $77,579 due to a change in the distribution channel for the sale of mortgage loans closed.
In 2009, cash and cash equivalents increased by approximately $102,500. Operating activities provided cash of $241,642. Cash was provided primarily by homebuilding operations and by an approximate $32,400 decrease in mortgage loans held for sale. The presentation of operating cash flows was reduced by approximately $66,400, which is the amount of the excess tax benefit realized from the exercise of stock options and deferred compensation plan distributions during the period and credited directly to additional paid in capital. Net cash used for investing activities during 2009 was $221,617 for the year ended December 31, 2009, which primarily resulted from the net purchase of marketable securities during 2009. The marketable securities, which were debt securities issued by the U.S. Treasury and other U.S. government corporations and agencies, were classified as held-to-maturity securities and matured within one year. Net cash provided by financing activities during 2009 was $82,482. Financing cash flow was favorably impacted by approximately $78,500 of proceeds from the exercise of stock options and the realization of approximately $66,400 in excess income tax benefits from the exercise of stock options and deferred compensation plan distributions. Cash was used by financing activities to reduce net borrowings under the mortgage warehouse facility by approximately $32,200 and we repurchased $29,950 of our 5% Senior Notes due 2010, at par during 2009.
At December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, the homebuilding segment had restricted cash of approximately $19,119, $22,889 and $4,600, respectively, which is included in “Other assets” on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The higher restricted cash balances in 2011 and 2010 as compared to 2009 were primarily attributable to holding requirements related to outstanding letters of credit issued under the letter of credit agreement we entered into in October 2010 as discussed further in Note 11 in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. In addition, restricted cash relates to customer deposits for certain home sales.
We believe that our current cash holdings, cash generated from operations and borrowings available under our mortgage repurchase agreement and the public debt and equity markets will be sufficient to satisfy near and long term cash requirements for working capital and debt service in both our homebuilding and mortgage banking operations.
Table of Contents
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
Lot Acquisition Strategy
We generally do not engage in land development. Instead, we typically acquire finished building lots at market prices from various land developers under fixed price purchase agreements that require deposits that may be forfeited if we fail to perform under the agreement. The deposits required under the purchase agreements are in the form of cash or letters of credit in varying amounts and represent a percentage, typically ranging up to 10%, of the aggregate purchase price of the finished lots.
We believe that our lot acquisition strategy reduces the financial requirements and risks associated with direct land ownership and land development. We may, at our option, choose for any reason and at any time not to perform under these purchase agreements by delivering notice of our intent not to acquire the finished lots under contract. Our sole legal obligation and economic loss for failure to perform under these purchase agreements is limited to the amount of the deposit pursuant to the liquidated damage provision contained within the purchase agreements. We do not have any financial guarantees or completion obligations and we typically do not guarantee lot purchases on a specific performance basis under these purchase agreements.
At December 31, 2011, we controlled approximately 53,000 lots with an aggregate purchase price of approximately $4,600,000, by making or committing to make deposits of approximately $253,000 in the form of cash and letters of credit. Our entire risk of loss pertaining to the aggregate purchase price contractual commitment resulting from our non-performance under the contracts is limited to our $205,500 deposit paid, plus the additional $47,500 referred to below. Of the $253,000 deposit total, approximately $202,300 was in cash and approximately $3,200 was in letters of credit which had been issued as of December 31, 2011. The remaining balance of approximately $47,500 relates to deposits to be paid subsequent to December 31, 2011 assuming that contractual development milestones are met by the developers (see Contractual Obligations section below). As of December 31, 2011, we had recorded an impairment valuation allowance of approximately $70,300 related to the cash deposits currently outstanding. Please refer to Note 1 in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for a further discussion of the contract land deposits and Note 3 in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for a description of our lot acquisition strategy in relation to our accounting related to the consolidation of variable interest entities_._
Bonds and Letters of Credit
We enter into bond or letter of credit arrangements with local municipalities, government agencies, or land developers to collateralize our obligations under various contracts. We had approximately $46,300 of contingent obligations under such agreements as of December 31, 2011 (inclusive of the $3,200 of lot acquisition deposits in the form of letters of credit discussed above). We believe we will fulfill our obligations under the related contracts and do not anticipate any material losses under these bonds or letters of credit.
Mortgage Commitments and Forward Sales
In the normal course of business, our mortgage banking segment enters into contractual commitments to extend credit to buyers of single-family homes with fixed expiration dates. The commitments become effective when the borrowers “lock-in” a specified interest rate within time frames established by us. All mortgagors are evaluated for credit worthiness prior to the extension of the commitment. Market risk arises if interest rates move adversely between the time of the “lock-in” of rates by the borrower and the sale date of the loan to a broker/dealer. To mitigate the effect of the interest rate risk inherent in providing rate lock commitments to borrowers, we enter into optional or mandatory delivery forward sale contracts to sell whole loans and mortgage-backed securities to broker/dealers. The forward sale contracts lock in an interest rate and price for the sale of loans similar to the specific rate lock commitments. We do not engage in speculative or trading derivative activities. Both the rate lock commitments to borrowers and the forward sale contracts to broker/dealers are undesignated derivatives, and, accordingly, are marked to fair value through earnings. At December 31, 2011, there were contractual commitments to extend credit to borrowers aggregating $126,929 and open forward delivery contracts aggregating $353,555. Please refer to Note 12 in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for a description of our fair value accounting.
Table of Contents
Contractual Obligations
Our fixed, non-cancelable obligations as of December 31, 2011, were as follows:
| Payments due by period | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total | Less than 1 year | 1-3 years | 3-5 years | More than 5 years | ||||||||||||||||
| Capital lease (a) | $ | 1,978 | $ | 609 | $ | 1,369 | $ | — | $ | — | ||||||||||
| Operating leases (b) | 65,944 | 16,983 | 21,732 | 12,878 | 14,351 | |||||||||||||||
| Purchase obligations (c) | 47,525 | * | * | * | * | |||||||||||||||
| Executive Officer employment contracts (d) | 7,491 | 1,871 | 3,747 | 1,873 | — | |||||||||||||||
| Other long-term liabilities (e) | 18,859 | 18,332 | 527 | — | — | |||||||||||||||
| Total | $ | 141,797 | $ | 37,795 | $ | 27,375 | $ | 14,751 | $ | 14,351 | ||||||||||
| (a) | The present value of this obligation is included on the consolidated balance sheets. See Note 7 in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding capital lease obligations. |
|---|
| (b) | See Note 11 in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding operating leases. |
|---|
| (c)(*) | Amounts represent required payments of forfeitable deposits with land developers under existing, fixed price purchase agreements, assuming that contractual development milestones are met by the developers. We expect to make all payments of these deposits within the next three years, but due to the nature of the contractual development milestones that must be met, we are unable to accurately estimate the portion of the deposit obligation that will be made within one year and that portion that will be made within one to three years. |
|---|
| (d) | We have entered into employment agreements with our four executive officers. Each of the agreements expires on January 1, 2016 and provides for payment of a minimum base salary, which may be increased at the discretion of the Compensation Committee of NVR’s Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”), and annual incentive compensation of up to 100% of base salary upon achievement of annual performance objectives established by the Compensation Committee. The agreements also provide for payment of severance benefits upon termination of employment, in amounts ranging from $0 to two times the executive officer’s then annual base salary, depending on the reason for termination, plus up to $100 in outplacement assistance. Accordingly, total payments under these agreements will vary based on length of service, any future increases to base salaries, annual incentive payments earned, and the reason for termination. The agreements have been reflected in the above table assuming the continued employment of the executive officers for the full term of the respective agreements, and at the executive officers’ current base salaries. The above balances do not include any potential annual incentive compensation. The actual amounts paid could differ from that presented. |
|---|
| (e) | Amounts represent payments due under incentive compensation plans and are included on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, approximately $1,425 of which is recorded in the Mortgage Banking “Accounts payable and other liabilities” line item, and the remainder in the Homebuilding “Accrued expenses and other liabilities” line item. |
|---|
Critical Accounting Policies
General
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. We continually
Table of Contents
evaluate the estimates we use to prepare the consolidated financial statements and update those estimates as necessary. In general, our estimates are based on historical experience, on information from third party professionals, and other various assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the facts and circumstances. Actual results could differ materially from those estimates made by management.
Homebuilding Inventory
The carrying value of inventory is stated at the lower of cost or market value. Cost of lots and completed and uncompleted housing units represent the accumulated actual cost of the units. Field construction supervisors’ salaries and related direct overhead expenses are included in inventory costs. Interest costs are not capitalized into inventory, with the exception of land under development. Upon settlement, the cost of the unit is expensed on a specific identification basis. Cost of manufacturing materials is determined on a first-in, first-out basis.
Sold inventory is evaluated for impairment based on the contractual selling price compared to the total estimated cost to construct. Unsold inventory is evaluated for impairment by analyzing recent comparable sales prices within the applicable community compared to the costs incurred to date plus the expected costs to complete. Any calculated impairments are recorded immediately.
Land Under Development and Contract Land Deposits
Land Under Development
On a very limited basis, we directly acquire raw parcels of land already zoned for its intended use to develop into finished lots. Land under development includes the land acquisition costs, direct improvement costs, capitalized interest, where applicable, and real estate taxes.
Land under development, including the land under development held by our unconsolidated joint ventures and the related joint venture investments, is reviewed for potential write-downs when impairment indicators are present. In addition to considering market and economic conditions, we assess land under development impairments on a community-by-community basis, analyzing, as applicable, current sales absorption levels, recent sales’ gross profit, and the dollar differential between the projected fully-developed cost of the lots and the current market price for lots. If indicators of impairment are present for a community, we perform an analysis to determine if the undiscounted cash flows estimated to be generated by those assets are less than their carrying amounts, and if they are, impairment charges are required to be recorded in an amount by which the carrying amount of the assets exceeds the fair value of the assets. Our determination of fair value is primarily based on discounting the estimated future cash flows at a rate commensurate with the inherent risks associated with the assets and related estimated cash flow streams.
At December 31, 2011, we had approximately $78,000 in land under development in three separate communities. In addition, at December 31, 2011, we had an aggregate investment totaling approximately $89,500 in four separate JVs that controlled land under development. None of the three communities classified as land under development nor any of the undeveloped land held by the four JVs had any indicators of impairment at December 31, 2011. As such, we do not believe that any of the land under development is impaired at this time. However, there can be no assurance that we will not incur impairment charges in the future due to unanticipated adverse changes in the economy or other events adversely affecting specific markets or the homebuilding industry.
Contract Land Deposits
We purchase finished lots under fixed price purchase agreements that require deposits that may be forfeited if we fail to perform under the contract. The deposits are in the form of cash or letters of credit in varying amounts and represent a percentage of the aggregate purchase price of the finished lots.
Table of Contents
We maintain an allowance for losses on contract land deposits that reflects our judgment of the present loss exposure in the existing contract land deposit portfolio at the end of the reporting period. To analyze contract land deposit impairments, we utilize a loss contingency analysis that is conducted each quarter. In addition to considering market and economic conditions, we assess contract land deposit impairments on a community-by-community basis pursuant to the purchase contract terms, analyzing, as applicable, current sales absorption levels, recent sales’ gross profit, the dollar differential between the contractual purchase price and the current market price for lots, a developer’s financial stability, a developer’s financial ability or willingness to reduce lot prices to current market prices, and the contract’s default status by either us or the developer along with an analysis of the expected outcome of any such default.
Our analysis is focused on whether we can sell houses profitably in a particular community in the current market with which we are faced. Because we don’t own the finished lots on which we had placed a contract land deposit, if the above analysis leads to a determination that we can’t sell homes profitably at the current contractual lot price, we then determine whether we will elect to default under the contract, forfeit our deposit and terminate the contract, or whether we will attempt to restructure the lot purchase contract, which may require us to forfeit the deposit to obtain contract concessions from a developer. We also assess whether an impairment is present due to collectability issues resulting from a developer’s non-performance because of financial or other conditions.
Although we consider the allowance for losses on contract land deposits reflected on the December 31, 2011 consolidated balance sheet to be adequate (see Note 1 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements included herein), there can be no assurance that this allowance will prove to be adequate over time to cover losses due to unanticipated adverse changes in the economy or other events adversely affecting specific markets or the homebuilding industry.
Intangible Assets
Reorganization value in excess of identifiable assets (“excess reorganization value”) is an indefinite life intangible asset that was created upon our emergence from bankruptcy on September 30, 1993. Based on the allocation of our reorganization value, the portion of our reorganization value which was not attributed to specific tangible or intangible assets has been reported as excess reorganization value, which is treated similarly to goodwill. Excess reorganization value is not subject to amortization. Rather, excess reorganization value is subject to an impairment assessment on an annual basis or more frequently if changes in events or circumstances indicate that impairment may have occurred. Because excess reorganization value was based on the reorganization value of our entire enterprise upon bankruptcy emergence, the impairment assessment is conducted on an enterprise basis based on the comparison of our total equity compared to the market value of our outstanding publicly-traded common stock. We do not believe that excess reorganization value is impaired at this time. However, changes in strategy or continued adverse changes in market conditions could impact this judgment and require an impairment loss to be recognized if our book value, including excess reorganization value, exceeds the fair value.
Warranty/Product Liability Accruals
Warranty and product liability accruals are established to provide for estimated future costs as a result of construction and product defects, product recalls and litigation incidental to our business. Liability estimates are determined based on our judgment considering such factors as historical experience, the likely current cost of corrective action, manufacturers’ and subcontractors’ participation in sharing the cost of corrective action, consultations with third party experts such as engineers, and evaluations by our General Counsel and outside counsel retained to handle specific product liability cases. Although we consider the warranty and product liability accrual reflected on the December 31, 2011 consolidated balance sheet to be adequate (see Note 11 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements included herein), there can be no assurance that this accrual will prove to be adequate over time to cover losses due to increased costs for material and labor, the inability or refusal of manufacturers or subcontractors to financially participate in corrective action, unanticipated adverse legal settlements, or other unanticipated changes to the assumptions used to estimate the warranty and product liability accrual.
Table of Contents
Equity-Based Compensation Expense
Compensation costs related to our equity-based compensation plans are recognized within our income statement. The costs recognized are based on the grant date fair value. Compensation cost for share-based grants is recognized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period for the entire award (from the date of grant through the period of the last separately vesting portion of the grant).
We calculate the fair value of our non-publicly traded, employee stock options using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. While the Black-Scholes model is a widely accepted method to calculate the fair value of options, its results are dependent on input variables, two of which, expected term and expected volatility, are significantly dependent on management’s judgment. We have concluded that our historical exercise experience is the best estimate of future exercise patterns to determine an option’s expected term. To estimate expected volatility, we analyze the historical volatility of our common stock over a period equal to the option’s expected term. Changes in management’s judgment of the expected term and the expected volatility could have a material effect on the grant-date fair value calculated and expensed within the income statement. In addition, we are required to estimate future grant forfeitures when considering the amount of stock-based compensation costs to record. We have concluded that our historical forfeiture rate is the best measure to base our estimate of future forfeitures of equity-based compensation grants. However, there can be no assurance that our future forfeiture rate will not be materially higher or lower than our historical forfeiture rate, which would affect the aggregate cumulative compensation expense recognized.
Mortgage Loan Loss Allowance
We originate several different loan products to our customers to finance the purchase of their home. We sell all of the loans we originate into the secondary mortgage market generally within 30 to 60 days from origination. All of the loans that we originate are underwritten to the standards and specifications of the ultimate investor. Insofar as we underwrite our originated loans to those standards, we bear no increased concentration of credit risk from the issuance of loans, except in certain limited instances where early payment default occurs. Those underwriting standards are typically equal to or more stringent than the underwriting standards required by FNMA, VA and FHA. We employ a quality control department to ensure that our underwriting controls are effectively operating, and further assess the underwriting function as part of our assessment of internal controls over financial reporting. We maintain an allowance for losses on mortgage loans originated that reflects our judgment of the present loss exposure in the loans that we have originated and sold. The allowance is calculated based on an analysis of historical experience and anticipated losses on mortgages held for investment, real estate owned, and specific expected loan repurchases or indemnifications. Although we consider the allowance for loan losses reflected on the December 31, 2011 consolidated balance sheet to be adequate (see Note 13 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements included herein), there can be no assurance that this allowance will prove to be adequate over time to cover losses due to unanticipated changes to the assumptions used to estimate the mortgage loan loss allowance.
Impact of Inflation, Changing Prices and Economic Conditions
See Risk Factors included in Item 1A herein. See also the discussion above under Overview of Current Business Environment.
Previous: Item 6. Selected Financial Data. · Next: Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure About Market Risk.